| I know it's been pointed out before... 18:54 - Aug 20 with 4351 views | ITFCBlues |
But this certainly shows the need to improve if we're to continue to win games. Had our fair share of luck in games if not in injuries!
|  |
| |  |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 18:57 - Aug 20 with 3608 views | Jeff_winger |
I dont understand the graph?
How have we managed win 4 games with both the worst attack and defence? |  | | |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 18:59 - Aug 20 with 3587 views | ITFCBlues |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 18:57 - Aug 20 by Jeff_winger |
I dont understand the graph?
How have we managed win 4 games with both the worst attack and defence? |
With a lot of luck it would seem! | |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 19:03 - Aug 20 with 3564 views | Vaughan8 |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 18:59 - Aug 20 by ITFCBlues |
With a lot of luck it would seem! |
Don't say that. The "only stat that counts is goals" brigade will be out |  | | |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 19:06 - Aug 20 with 3542 views | GeoffSentence |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 18:57 - Aug 20 by Jeff_winger |
I dont understand the graph?
How have we managed win 4 games with both the worst attack and defence? |
The graph shows expected goals, based on the number of chances each team has had. Happily we have been much more clinical than the average so we have a lot more goals than expected.
I think the point of the OP is that we can't expect to keep up this incredible efficiency in front of goal so need to create more chances to keep scoring. |  |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 19:07 - Aug 20 with 3530 views | ITFCBlues |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 19:03 - Aug 20 by Vaughan8 |
Don't say that. The "only stat that counts is goals" brigade will be out |
It is. But we must improve in order to maintain this start. But who cares at present? All about grinding out wins until players return to fitness | |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 19:08 - Aug 20 with 3522 views | ITFCBlues |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 19:06 - Aug 20 by GeoffSentence |
The graph shows expected goals, based on the number of chances each team has had. Happily we have been much more clinical than the average so we have a lot more goals than expected.
I think the point of the OP is that we can't expect to keep up this incredible efficiency in front of goal so need to create more chances to keep scoring. |
Quite - and also defend better and allow less chances as appears we allow a lot of chances as well! [Post edited 20 Aug 2017 19:08]
| |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 20:45 - Aug 20 with 3388 views | Guthrum |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 19:06 - Aug 20 by GeoffSentence |
The graph shows expected goals, based on the number of chances each team has had. Happily we have been much more clinical than the average so we have a lot more goals than expected.
I think the point of the OP is that we can't expect to keep up this incredible efficiency in front of goal so need to create more chances to keep scoring. |
I'm not sure why we can't expect to keep up something like this level of shooting efficiency.
It's all about not wasting shots, not having strikers blazing wildly off-target or soft balls straight at the 'keeper. None of McGoldrick, Waghorn or Garner seem inclined to do that. Having multiple strikers maneuvering in the box will help that by pulling defenders and goalies out of position.
Besides which, as our sick and injured midfield options come back into the team, the number of chances created is only likely to go up. |  |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 21:05 - Aug 20 with 3329 views | ITFCBlues |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 20:45 - Aug 20 by Guthrum |
I'm not sure why we can't expect to keep up something like this level of shooting efficiency.
It's all about not wasting shots, not having strikers blazing wildly off-target or soft balls straight at the 'keeper. None of McGoldrick, Waghorn or Garner seem inclined to do that. Having multiple strikers maneuvering in the box will help that by pulling defenders and goalies out of position.
Besides which, as our sick and injured midfield options come back into the team, the number of chances created is only likely to go up. |
I agree. It's possible. But we certainly need to improve in terms of shots against as well. I'm fairly certain we will when players return to fitness | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 03:28 - Aug 21 with 3156 views | Illinoisblue |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 19:06 - Aug 20 by GeoffSentence |
The graph shows expected goals, based on the number of chances each team has had. Happily we have been much more clinical than the average so we have a lot more goals than expected.
I think the point of the OP is that we can't expect to keep up this incredible efficiency in front of goal so need to create more chances to keep scoring. |
Football is getting over-statted to death |  |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 07:28 - Aug 21 with 3075 views | textbackup |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 19:03 - Aug 20 by Vaughan8 |
Don't say that. The "only stat that counts is goals" brigade will be out |
What a strange thing to say, goals win games, so they are the only stat that matters.
Stoke vs arsenal saturday, the stats etc are massively in arsenals favour, they lost 1-0. The end |  |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 07:51 - Aug 21 with 3017 views | Herbivore |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 19:08 - Aug 20 by ITFCBlues |
Quite - and also defend better and allow less chances as appears we allow a lot of chances as well! [Post edited 20 Aug 2017 19:08]
|
Brentford had about 23 shots but they didn't carve out a single genuine clear cut chance all afternoon, just a load of shots from distance (about 20 of them) and half chances from difficult positions inside the area. We created better opportunities than them, albeit fewer of them. We defended really well despite Brentford having so many 'chances' which just highlights why graphs like that are overly simplistic. |  |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:09 - Aug 21 with 2991 views | Steve_M |
I think the pure stats are slightly misleading as the matches I've seen have not been as one-sided as the shots on target figures suggest.
On Saturday, Brentford dominated the first 30 minutes but tended to overplay the ball rather than shoot - the low shot to Bart's right and the one that hit the bar being the only really concerning ones. Once we got into the game, they created a lot less despite a good amount of possession. Garner's ball that just didn't reach Sears and the brilliant tackle on Garner were both good chances but don't feature here for example.
And, similarly, my thoughts after Millwall.
What I really liked about last night ... by Steve_M 16 Aug 2017 13:57Whilst we did ride out luck a little last night, it wasn't as starkly as the stats suggest Millwall had a lot of pressure, not too many shots on target either. I thought we created more opportunities last night and just failed to get shots away. The real problem was trying to keep the ball in the second half which gave Millwall much more possession.
We definitely had five on target as I'm counting Jonas's Neil Thompson style-shot.
I do think four strikers leaves us stretched in midfield and reduces the amount of possession we have, it was a lot better against Birmingham and Luton than in the last two games. When Downes came on on Saturday we had the option to recycle possession for a bit , although we then sat back a bit more.
Edit: To add that those graphs of Mayhew, obviously become a lot more useful with a greater sample size than after four games. [Post edited 21 Aug 2017 8:11]
|  |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:28 - Aug 21 with 2923 views | BackToRussia |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 20:45 - Aug 20 by Guthrum |
I'm not sure why we can't expect to keep up something like this level of shooting efficiency.
It's all about not wasting shots, not having strikers blazing wildly off-target or soft balls straight at the 'keeper. None of McGoldrick, Waghorn or Garner seem inclined to do that. Having multiple strikers maneuvering in the box will help that by pulling defenders and goalies out of position.
Besides which, as our sick and injured midfield options come back into the team, the number of chances created is only likely to go up. |
Our percentage of shots on target that are goals is something like 90%, doubt we'll keep that up! |  |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:32 - Aug 21 with 2909 views | Mullet |
I do like the replies under this tweet pointing out what utter garbage it is.
Poor guy has tried to do something illustrative and been undone by the laws of football reality it seems.
Barnsley's attack seem to be getting praised largely on one half of football against us, yet we rolled them over. "Expected goals" based on what was effectively a series of goalmouth scrambles, rebounds and putting the ball in the box is such an odd metric.
He'd be better off calling them active/efficiency of attacks and defences and playing down the goal part I guess. |  |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:33 - Aug 21 with 2909 views | Hipsterectomy |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:28 - Aug 21 by BackToRussia |
Our percentage of shots on target that are goals is something like 90%, doubt we'll keep that up! |
It sounds crazy but I think the longer we keep winning, the worse it is going to be when we lose. And even if we lose 2 or 3 in a row I'm not sure how the team will respond to that. |  |
| Walter Smith's Barmy Army |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:35 - Aug 21 with 2897 views | Reuser_is_God |
How can we have a 'worse attack' when we're currently the leagues top scorers?
Utter bollox which is best ignored. |  |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:36 - Aug 21 with 2893 views | Mullet |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:33 - Aug 21 by Hipsterectomy |
It sounds crazy but I think the longer we keep winning, the worse it is going to be when we lose. And even if we lose 2 or 3 in a row I'm not sure how the team will respond to that. |
All depends when it comes and what position we're in, who we play next etc.
I actually think the sooner the better in some ways. With all these players coming back after the international break, competition should be fierce. You'd hope a defeat or two means all players raise their game trying to get in the side.
Obviously winning every single game would be preferable. | |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:40 - Aug 21 with 2867 views | textbackup |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:36 - Aug 21 by Mullet |
All depends when it comes and what position we're in, who we play next etc.
I actually think the sooner the better in some ways. With all these players coming back after the international break, competition should be fierce. You'd hope a defeat or two means all players raise their game trying to get in the side.
Obviously winning every single game would be preferable. |
Personally if we lose away it's no biggie, the inportant one I'm sure we all agree is to win home games. | |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:41 - Aug 21 with 2863 views | BackToRussia |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:33 - Aug 21 by Hipsterectomy |
It sounds crazy but I think the longer we keep winning, the worse it is going to be when we lose. And even if we lose 2 or 3 in a row I'm not sure how the team will respond to that. |
Know where you're coming from. It was similar in 2014/5 in a way when we got to Christmas near the top and it was the second half of the season where we struggled and looked as though we didn't really know how to react as a team to get back to that level. | |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:41 - Aug 21 with 2858 views | Steve_M |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:35 - Aug 21 by Reuser_is_God |
How can we have a 'worse attack' when we're currently the leagues top scorers?
Utter bollox which is best ignored. |
I don't think it's actually a bad way to visualise football trends but this early in the season it is clearly a bit flawed. | |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 09:03 - Aug 21 with 2796 views | GeoffSentence |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 20:45 - Aug 20 by Guthrum |
I'm not sure why we can't expect to keep up something like this level of shooting efficiency.
It's all about not wasting shots, not having strikers blazing wildly off-target or soft balls straight at the 'keeper. None of McGoldrick, Waghorn or Garner seem inclined to do that. Having multiple strikers maneuvering in the box will help that by pulling defenders and goalies out of position.
Besides which, as our sick and injured midfield options come back into the team, the number of chances created is only likely to go up. |
It would be phenomenal if we could keep up a scoring rate of 9 goals for every 11 shots on target over an entire season. Unheard of even. | |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 09:07 - Aug 21 with 2772 views | Freddies_Ears |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:40 - Aug 21 by textbackup |
Personally if we lose away it's no biggie, the inportant one I'm sure we all agree is to win home games. |
If we win our 21 remaining home games, we'll have a minimum of 75 points, plenty enough for the misery of the play-offs!!! | | | |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 09:30 - Aug 21 with 2730 views | Guthrum |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:28 - Aug 21 by BackToRussia |
Our percentage of shots on target that are goals is something like 90%, doubt we'll keep that up! |
Certainly it will drop below that, but it doesn't need to go anywhere near as low as last season's 29% of all shots on target going in. | |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 09:45 - Aug 21 with 2703 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:35 - Aug 21 by Reuser_is_God |
How can we have a 'worse attack' when we're currently the leagues top scorers?
Utter bollox which is best ignored. |
It means that our expected goals is lower than the amount we've actually scored - so basically saying our attack is potentially worse than it has performed so far (or to put it another way - our strikers have been more clinical than the average) |  |
| |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 09:49 - Aug 21 with 2693 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| I know it's been pointed out before... on 08:09 - Aug 21 by Steve_M |
I think the pure stats are slightly misleading as the matches I've seen have not been as one-sided as the shots on target figures suggest.
On Saturday, Brentford dominated the first 30 minutes but tended to overplay the ball rather than shoot - the low shot to Bart's right and the one that hit the bar being the only really concerning ones. Once we got into the game, they created a lot less despite a good amount of possession. Garner's ball that just didn't reach Sears and the brilliant tackle on Garner were both good chances but don't feature here for example.
And, similarly, my thoughts after Millwall.
What I really liked about last night ... by Steve_M 16 Aug 2017 13:57Whilst we did ride out luck a little last night, it wasn't as starkly as the stats suggest Millwall had a lot of pressure, not too many shots on target either. I thought we created more opportunities last night and just failed to get shots away. The real problem was trying to keep the ball in the second half which gave Millwall much more possession.
We definitely had five on target as I'm counting Jonas's Neil Thompson style-shot.
I do think four strikers leaves us stretched in midfield and reduces the amount of possession we have, it was a lot better against Birmingham and Luton than in the last two games. When Downes came on on Saturday we had the option to recycle possession for a bit , although we then sat back a bit more.
Edit: To add that those graphs of Mayhew, obviously become a lot more useful with a greater sample size than after four games. [Post edited 21 Aug 2017 8:11]
|
Expected goals takes into account the quality of chances, however you're right that it doesn't account for 'nearly' chances and the like
It's definitely worth bearing in mind though - most teams tend to revert to the mean as far as EG is concerned and it's been proven a very good indicator of performance over a longer period of time. There have of course been a couple of notable exceptions however (hello Leicester), and obviously as far as we're concerned you'd hope that we will continue to improve as players return to fitness - which makes the fact we've started the season so clinically all the better | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
